If however, you are arguing that Apple made a mistake by choosing a larger screen and slimmer profile over longer battery life, then that is more of a subjective matter.
Personally, I'm more than content with 12-14 hours of musak.
Cool, iPod nano
It's the screen in combination with the slim profile. 8GB HDD players I imagine have a larger profile that fits a larger battery. I'm not aware of any other flash based players that have a screen like the nano nor the very slim profile to compare the nano to.+JuggerNaut+ wrote:it's flash based, the battery life should be longer. 8GB HDD players have as much or longer battery life. the screen's no more impressive than competitors' OLED or color offerings.mjrpes wrote:mjrpes wrote: You're stating that as if Apple could have done better in this regard, given the large, bright screen and slim profile. I don't see how you are justified in saying this.
But really, I can't see how there would have been any way for Apple to increase battery life, since battery technology is pretty much limited to Lithium ion. What do you think +JuggerNaut+? Do you think that Apple used inferior circuitry in the iPod Nanos in order to increase their bottom line or because Apple is incompetent when it comes to making electronics? Or do you think that Apple went overboard and made the iPod Nano too slim, when they could have made the Nano twice as thick and gotten 40 hours out of the thing?
Personally, I have confidence in Apple as a maker of quality electronic products, and that if Apple could have increased the battery life without increasing the size of the Nano nor diminishing the quality of the screen, they would have.
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
imo, just a tad thicker i'd trade for longer battery life. and you're talking like i'm an apple basher. no, i'm not, but some of you Apple fanboys around here think everything they make is perfect. i have a 4G 20GB ipod and i love it, but it's not perfect.mjrpes wrote:It's the screen in combination with the slim profile. 8GB HDD players I imagine have a larger profile that fits a larger battery. I'm not aware of any other flash based players that have a screen like the nano nor the very slim profile to compare the nano to.+JuggerNaut+ wrote:it's flash based, the battery life should be longer. 8GB HDD players have as much or longer battery life. the screen's no more impressive than competitors' OLED or color offerings.mjrpes wrote:
But really, I can't see how there would have been any way for Apple to increase battery life, since battery technology is pretty much limited to Lithium ion. What do you think +JuggerNaut+? Do you think that Apple used inferior circuitry in the iPod Nanos in order to increase their bottom line or because Apple is incompetent when it comes to making electronics? Or do you think that Apple went overboard and made the iPod Nano too slim, when they could have made the Nano twice as thick and gotten 40 hours out of the thing?
Personally, I have confidence in Apple as a maker of quality electronic products, and that if Apple could have increased the battery life without increasing the size of the Nano nor diminishing the quality of the screen, they would have.
I don't feel the Nano is perfect, either. "Gapless playback" come to mind? 
But I do feel, personally, that Apple made an OK choice by going for the slimmer profile (and better "style") than longer batter life. 12-14 hours is fine for me, and I imagine Apple came to the conclusion that this is what most other people feel, too.
But I do feel, personally, that Apple made an OK choice by going for the slimmer profile (and better "style") than longer batter life. 12-14 hours is fine for me, and I imagine Apple came to the conclusion that this is what most other people feel, too.[size=85]yea i've too been kind of thinking about maybe a new sig but sort of haven't come to quite a decision yet[/size]
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
i can see your side of it, but like i said, for me, if playback time would increase by even 3 hours by making it just a little bigger, but certainly still smaller than the mini by quite a bit, i'd rather have that.mjrpes wrote:I don't feel the Nano is perfect, either. "Gapless playback" come to mind?
he's a high maintance bitch, I couldn't keep up with itR00k wrote:Juggs, at this point I pretty much gloss over any critical reviews you give on technology, because it seems like nothing can live up to your standards.
fuck off sigs
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/316626399_65f19bc409_t.jpg[/img]
[img]http://farm1.static.flickr.com/110/316626399_65f19bc409_t.jpg[/img]
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
rofl.. zealot. I'm just questioning your authority to determine (in a rather holier-than-thou way) what others should value when choosing electronics.+JuggerNaut+ wrote:i'm merely stating the battery life. you zealots need to take a nap.Dave wrote:So in other words, they're speaking from a position of experience and you are not?+JuggerNaut+ wrote:of course the guys that have them are going to go after me. i love it. bring it on.
-
SplishSplash
- Posts: 4467
- Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2000 8:00 am
I just saw the now-famous thread about the scratches on iPod nanos on the Apple forums, and I have to say it's hilarious to what lengths some apple fanboys go to defend Apple.
Somebody there (on the first page) said something like:
"I had my nano in the same pocket as a soft package of kleenex tissues and now it's scratched!"
The answer she gets is:
"The iPod surface is a high gloss plastic finish and the kleenex packet is also plastic, but you will find that even though it feels soft it will in fact be rough at a microscopic level.
...
I also think users are being a lot more senstive to this issue with the nano because it is so small and therefore a mark seems huge. We are also more sensitive as the nano is such a sleek and sexy piece of kit."
Seriously, aren't there limits to delusion?
Somebody there (on the first page) said something like:
"I had my nano in the same pocket as a soft package of kleenex tissues and now it's scratched!"
The answer she gets is:
"The iPod surface is a high gloss plastic finish and the kleenex packet is also plastic, but you will find that even though it feels soft it will in fact be rough at a microscopic level.
...
I also think users are being a lot more senstive to this issue with the nano because it is so small and therefore a mark seems huge. We are also more sensitive as the nano is such a sleek and sexy piece of kit."
Seriously, aren't there limits to delusion?
Because it's so small, I've been keeping my nano in my wallet, and after a week of use I don't notice many scratches... at least not bad enough to affect the display.
But it does seem like a huge blunder on Apple's part. With the device being so small, a protective case can literally double the thickness, taking much away from the thin and light appeal. The nano should have been designed to hold up well against minimal abuse, at least the type you get from keeping it in your pocket with your car keys.
But it does seem like a huge blunder on Apple's part. With the device being so small, a protective case can literally double the thickness, taking much away from the thin and light appeal. The nano should have been designed to hold up well against minimal abuse, at least the type you get from keeping it in your pocket with your car keys.
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
Dave wrote:rofl.. zealot. I'm just questioning your authority to determine (in a rather holier-than-thou way) what others should value when choosing electronics.+JuggerNaut+ wrote:i'm merely stating the battery life. you zealots need to take a nap.Dave wrote: So in other words, they're speaking from a position of experience and you are not?
again, i'm talking about battery life, which, to most people IS a big deal when purchasing a DAP.
you Apple boys crack me up.
What's your point riddla? The battery life is still shit..
It's like saying 'this car only does 2mph because they managed to power it with hamsters!'. The car is still shit.
BTW everyone's raving about the size yet the Creative MuVo is about the same size and you can get those in 1/2Gb models. No big deal.
It's like saying 'this car only does 2mph because they managed to power it with hamsters!'. The car is still shit.
BTW everyone's raving about the size yet the Creative MuVo is about the same size and you can get those in 1/2Gb models. No big deal.
"Maybe you have some bird ideas. Maybe that’s the best you can do."
― Terry A. Davis
― Terry A. Davis
-
[xeno]Julios
- Posts: 6216
- Joined: Fri Dec 10, 1999 8:00 am
60 hours of the same 90 minutes over and over....brisk wrote:The 14-16 hours playback IS poor. Apart from the price, its the fundamental reason why I wouldn't buy an ipod nano.
My sony netmd can offer about 60 hours playback. Even sony's MP3 range generally double or triple the nano's battery life. Why is the nano battery life so shit in comparison?
Yeah, but what if you could fit it in your backpack and you only had to drive it 30 yards?Foo wrote:What's your point riddla? The battery life is still shit..
It's like saying 'this car only does 2mph because they managed to power it with hamsters!'. The car is still shit.
Everybody's needs aren't the same.
Open player/replace disc/press playGeebs wrote:60 hours of the same 90 minutes over and over....brisk wrote:The 14-16 hours playback IS poor. Apart from the price, its the fundamental reason why I wouldn't buy an ipod nano.
My sony netmd can offer about 60 hours playback. Even sony's MP3 range generally double or triple the nano's battery life. Why is the nano battery life so shit in comparison?
So in reality, 60 hours playback AND unlimited storage! How the hell did this format fail??!
-
+JuggerNaut+
- Posts: 22175
- Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 7:00 am
good question.brisk wrote:Open player/replace disc/press playGeebs wrote:60 hours of the same 90 minutes over and over....brisk wrote:The 14-16 hours playback IS poor. Apart from the price, its the fundamental reason why I wouldn't buy an ipod nano.
My sony netmd can offer about 60 hours playback. Even sony's MP3 range generally double or triple the nano's battery life. Why is the nano battery life so shit in comparison?
So in reality, 60 hours playback AND unlimited storage! How the hell did this format fail??!
- There's that little issue of transcoding to ATRAC3.brisk wrote:Open player/replace disc/press playGeebs wrote:60 hours of the same 90 minutes over and over....brisk wrote:The 14-16 hours playback IS poor. Apart from the price, its the fundamental reason why I wouldn't buy an ipod nano.
My sony netmd can offer about 60 hours playback. Even sony's MP3 range generally double or triple the nano's battery life. Why is the nano battery life so shit in comparison?
So in reality, 60 hours playback AND unlimited storage! How the hell did this format fail??!
- Many people don't want to drag discs around with them.
- Compared to the nano, it's a brick (4.1 oz sans-battery) with an ugly dot-matrix display.
- It has moving parts